3 ms·

I'm not sure I buy the SR&ED complaint. A friend of mine got some SRED credits refunded while he worked on a tool. It didn't seem to onerous from his perspect

I'm not sure I buy the SR&ED complaint. A friend of mine got some SRED credits refunded while he worked on a tool. It didn't seem to onerous from his perspective. Of course, that was a few years ago. Things may have gotten worse recently.

fraserharris 11y ago
SRED has become more restrictive in the past few years. Legitimate technology companies are having their SRED applications denied (although its debatable whether their work involved Scientific Research and Experimental Development).
- kazinator 11y ago
  Also, maybe it's easier for an individual who works on one tool than for a whole organization? Personal anything is easier compared to corporate. The documentation comes from one source.
jbob2000 11y ago
It's brutal, my company does SR&ED every year and it ties up all of the directors and our development lead for at least 3 months. The executives push it because all they see is the tax credits, but don't see the ridiculous amount of man hours that go into it.
- ska 11y ago
  For what its worth, it can be done successfully for considerably less effort than that.
- francism 11y ago
  Similar experience here. I've seen SR&ED bring all development to a halt for multiple months. 60 page documents per developer were not uncommon.
ska 11y ago
They have gotten a bit more restrictive. In my experience The burden for SR&ED isn't actually too bad if you know what you are doing. Startups typically run into trouble with because they didn't document things as they went, and scramble near filing time.
- msbarnett 11y ago
  This is my observation as well. There's also a non-zero number of companies filing for SR&ED credits and complaining about the onerousness of the audits who, quite frankly, should not be eligible for SR&ED. Paying devs to build yet another time tracking tool or yet another social network might be contorted to meet the letter of "advancing the state of science by encouraging R&D investment in Canada", but it certainly doesn't meet its spirit.
  - ska 11y ago
    I think the original post was pointing more at a problem of investors pressuring companies to file for SR&ED (and to get the credits) even when they were not really applicable. I don't see how this is a problem with the program, rather than the investors, though. When you actually are doing appropriate work, it has been reasonably manageable to both get and keep them. I have also, contra the OP, seen this work with 3rd party help on filing, although I wouldn't be surprised if this raises the scrutiny.
    - msbarnett 11y ago
      Yeah, no question that investor pressure to submit all of this inappropriate work is a big problem in and of itself. It is, as you say, a good program, and I've had fairly reasonable experiences with it when the company in question was 1) well prepared and good about documentation the work. This is the part where a lot of people trip, because you want to document not just how time is spent but on how what it is spent on relates to the larger R&D goals and 2) Doing work that truly does look SR&ED worthy. This is where third parties seem to specialize in dressing up mundane stuff as ground-breaking science, and why auditors seem to increasingly key in on companies using their services.

fraserharris 11y ago

SRED has become more restrictive in the past few years. Legitimate technology companies are having their SRED applications denied (although its debatable whether their work involved Scientific Research and Experimental Development).

kazinator 11y ago
Also, maybe it's easier for an individual who works on one tool than for a whole organization? Personal anything is easier compared to corporate. The documentation comes from one source.

jbob2000 11y ago

It's brutal, my company does SR&ED every year and it ties up all of the directors and our development lead for at least 3 months. The executives push it because all they see is the tax credits, but don't see the ridiculous amount of man hours that go into it.

ska 11y ago
For what its worth, it can be done successfully for considerably less effort than that.
francism 11y ago
Similar experience here. I've seen SR&ED bring all development to a halt for multiple months. 60 page documents per developer were not uncommon.

ska 11y ago

They have gotten a bit more restrictive. In my experience The burden for SR&ED isn't actually too bad if you know what you are doing. Startups typically run into trouble with because they didn't document things as they went, and scramble near filing time.

msbarnett 11y ago
This is my observation as well. There's also a non-zero number of companies filing for SR&ED credits and complaining about the onerousness of the audits who, quite frankly, should not be eligible for SR&ED. Paying devs to build yet another time tracking tool or yet another social network might be contorted to meet the letter of "advancing the state of science by encouraging R&D investment in Canada", but it certainly doesn't meet its spirit.
- ska 11y ago
  I think the original post was pointing more at a problem of investors pressuring companies to file for SR&ED (and to get the credits) even when they were not really applicable. I don't see how this is a problem with the program, rather than the investors, though. When you actually are doing appropriate work, it has been reasonably manageable to both get and keep them. I have also, contra the OP, seen this work with 3rd party help on filing, although I wouldn't be surprised if this raises the scrutiny.
  - msbarnett 11y ago
    Yeah, no question that investor pressure to submit all of this inappropriate work is a big problem in and of itself. It is, as you say, a good program, and I've had fairly reasonable experiences with it when the company in question was 1) well prepared and good about documentation the work. This is the part where a lot of people trip, because you want to document not just how time is spent but on how what it is spent on relates to the larger R&D goals and 2) Doing work that truly does look SR&ED worthy. This is where third parties seem to specialize in dressing up mundane stuff as ground-breaking science, and why auditors seem to increasingly key in on companies using their services.